I basic left to stop me getting into a position of taking them to court.
Wow that was kind of you, you're really nice.
The fact is and has increased you cant just come on a forum and say what you like
This has always been the case and so what? What you said about cordoning off was published in a magazine and then repeated (by you) on here. There's no doubt that you said it, and you still think we should all be cordoning off the area when using waterfed poles.
Look the facts are in the article
Go and look at this legislation and read it
I already did, and have quoted it several times, mainly because I couldn't believe that it said what you claimed it said. I actually (sad case that I am) took the time read to read the whole Work at Height Regulations document, which is here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/madeI dont dodge questions
Its just to be fair is complicated,
You'd like to give that impression, because if the regulations are complicated then people must need to be trained by you to comply. $$ Kerching! $$
But actually they are not complicated, they are pretty straightforward and sensible. Let's look at what you said and see if it matches up with what the regulations say, shall we?
Andy Willis:
"Regulation 10 of the Working At Height Legislation covers falling objects, and makes clear that in order to comply fully with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated, ideally including cones, tape and barriers. There should also be clear signs indicating that work is in progress, and that there may be a falling objects hazard. Such barriers and signs are frequently missing."
So, you are saying that Regulation 10 "makes it clear" that you must cordon off an area when using poles.
Here is what Regulation 10 actually says:
"Falling objects
10.—(1) Every employer shall, where necessary to prevent injury to any person, take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, the fall of any material or object.
(2) Where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1), every employer shall take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent any person being struck by any falling material or object which is liable to cause personal injury.
(3) Every employer shall ensure that no material or object is thrown or tipped from height in circumstances where it is liable to cause injury to any person.
(4) Every employer shall ensure that materials and objects are stored in such a way as to prevent risk to any person arising from the collapse, overturning or unintended movement of such materials or objects."
So what is it actually saying;
In paragraph (1) it says we must first take reasonable and practical steps to PREVENT the object falling.
This makes good sense, preventing something falling is obviously the best thing to do, and for waterfed poles, what would be a good way to do that? Obviously, it would be to
keep holding onto it, which of course window cleaners do. So as long as I keep hold of the pole while its extended, and don't leave it unattended while it's up, then I have taken reasonably practical steps to prevent it falling. I have fully complied with the law. As far as regulation 10 goes, I'm good. And guess what? I didn't need to cordon off the area.
So then, this begs the question, what are you on about Andy Willis? Where does it say "in order to comply fully with the law, a safety zone should be demarcated" as you said in your article? Anywhere? No.
The only time it becomes necessary to take reasonable steps to prevent people being hit by objects if section 2 comes into play:
"Where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1), every employer shall take suitable and sufficient steps to prevent any person being struck by any falling material or object which is liable to cause personal injury."
So what this section is saying, is that if it's not reasonably practical to actively prevent objects falling, then instead you must make sure that they don't hit someone if they fall. Will this ever apply to using waterfed poles? Is there ever a time when you can't hold onto a pole? No, it will never apply. Because to use a pole, you have to hold onto it, and therefore the act of using it means you are holding onto it, and that is a reasonably practicable way to actively prevent it falling. It's just the nature of the thing, it has to be held to be used. There's never a situation where a pole cannot be held onto, because that is how poles are used.
Sections 3 and 4 of that regulation discuss objects thrown from height, and things collapsing when stored at height - neither of which apply to waterfed pole.
So, again I will ask Andy, what are you on about? where is this requirement to cordon off? It simply isn't there. Prevention of poles falling is built-in to their use, and that is all that is needed to comply with the regulation.
One thing for sure Nick is that the law needs to be made clear
Nope, it's pretty clear already. In fact, it could hardly be clearer. You like to give the impression that it isn't clear so that people will pay you for training. And you even go a step further - you have claimed that the law requires something that it certainly DOES NOT, all to push your training.
Your last post was a bit of a climb-down, but it's too late. We have all seen what your agenda is.
For that reason, you are the enemy of hard working window cleaners who are just trying to get on with their business without the burden of unnecessary regulations. Worse, by doing so you bring health and safety regulation that has saved many lives into disrepute. It's obvious that the regulations in section 10 are reasonable and sensible, but you are claiming that they require something unreasonable and impractical when they clearly do not.
Why would anyone do this? It's obvious to us all that you're only interest is in making money from training, and anyone can see plainly that what you've publicly said is about regulation 10 is simply wrong, and designed to scare-monger.